No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Bitbar vs OpenText Functional Testing comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Bitbar
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
28th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Platforms (9th)
OpenText Functional Testing
Ranking in Functional Testing Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
98
Ranking in other categories
Mobile App Testing Tools (2nd), Regression Testing Tools (3rd), API Testing Tools (3rd), Test Automation Tools (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Functional Testing Tools category, the mindshare of Bitbar is 1.5%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Functional Testing is 7.1%, down from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Functional Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Functional Testing7.1%
Bitbar1.5%
Other91.4%
Functional Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1288116 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Digital & Cognitive Services at a tech company with 11-50 employees
A testing platform with a good API for apps, but pricing is complicated
I like that the AI Testbot is a near-zero code application for testing. For this use case, the function is good. The services are robust. Game testing and the API for apps are also good. From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied.
Kevin Copple - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Quality Assurance Project Manager at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Has supported faster test execution and increased flexibility while offering room to improve support responsiveness
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates another day of delay to get to the level that's needed. This is a common practice across most companies where you call, you get the entry-level person, and then they work their way up to help screen calls so that they are more focused.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Game testing and the API for apps are good."
"The overall product is awesome for device fragmentation, but not for automation."
"The feature that I like the most is that you can use different frameworks, whether it's APM or something else, and you don't need to worry about the framework."
"From the perspective of pricing, licensing, ease of use, integration with other applications, impact complexity, and integration with other tools, we're pretty much very satisfied."
"Ability to use different frameworks."
"It allows us to automate hundreds of test cases that would normally have to be manually tested."
"The object repository is one of the best in the market, allowing creation of a repository useful for all tests."
"The solution's recording option is the most beneficial for test script creation and maintenance."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"Micro Focus UFT One is a great tool and can be used in a variety of ways."
"It helps in identifying defects earlier. With manual testing, that 15-day timeline meant there were times when we would find defects on the 11th or 12th day of the cycle, but with automation we are able to run the complete suite within a day and we are able to find the failures. It helps us to provide early feedback."
"It is very simple to use, and the scripting language is even easier."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
 

Cons

"Their pricing structure is complicated and can be improved."
"Some stages of its automation is not working correctly and I need to make changes in the code created by Testdroid."
"Lacking capability options that can be directly integrated."
"Improvement of the product could be made by running the dashboard part, it gets stuck sometimes."
"In my opinion, the improvement of the object recognition of new technologies and the capacity to catch more performance info should be desirable."
"Prior to the past three years, we saw a lot of issues with stability and a lot of patching and concern from our internal customers that they couldn't rely on the tool to always be there when they needed it."
"Previously, the product was a script-based solution. Presently, the tool offers non-script, no-code, or low-code functionalities, making it an area where improvements are required."
"It looks like User Acceptance Testing of the product is getting bypassed entirely because this design has precedence in UFT."
"It needs to be able to be used on Chrome, Firefox, and other browsers on Macs and not just Safari. That's a very key requirement for my organization."
"I’d like to see them improve the number of objects recognized without customization, similar to TestComplete by SmartBear."
"There will be performance degradation on the test environment due to long continuous executions of automation scripts which leads to inconsistency of results, a better way to resolve this problem should be addressed at some point."
"The user interface could be improved"
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is complicated. It's in the middle."
"HPE recently extended the demo license period from 30 days to 60 days which was a very wise and popular decision to give potential customers more time to install it and try it for free. Even if your company has a salesperson come in and demo UFT, I would highly encourage at least one of your developers or automation engineers to download and install it to explore for themselves the functionality and features included during the demo trial period."
"There are no additional costs involved apart from the standard license."
"For the price of five automation licenses, you simply would not be able to hire five manual testers for two years worth of 24/7 manual testing work on demand."
"The way the pricing model works is that you pay a whole boatload year one. Then, every year after, it is around half or less. Because instead of paying for the new product, you are just paying for the support and maintenance of it. That is probably one of the biggest things that I hear from most people, even at conferences, "Yeah, I would love to use UFT One, but we don't have a budget for it.""
"The pricing fee is good. If someone makes use of the solution once a day for a half hour then the fee will be more expensive. For continuous use and application of the solution to different use cases, the fee is average."
"We have ALM licensing, and the tool is free of cost."
"Compared to other tools in the market, UFT One is very competitive. The recent Covid pandemic situation also hit customer budgets significantly, so Micro Focus offered some discounted prices, which is definitely competitive."
"The tool's price is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Functional Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
6%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How does Micro Focus UFT One compare to Tricentis Tosca?
We reviewed MicroFocus UFT One but ultimately chose to use Tricentis Tosca because we needed API testing. MicroFocus UFT is a performance and functional testing tool. We tested it, and it was well...
What needs improvement with Micro Focus UFT One?
Reducing the levels of support is something they could continue to improve. They tend to have an entry-level person that may not be as familiar with the product that fields the calls, which creates...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus UFT One?
I'm more familiar with Functional Testing. OpenText Functional Testing for Developers is a different product set that functions as an IDE for writing custom code. We don't leverage that product bec...
 

Also Known As

Testdroid
Micro Focus UFT One, Micro Focus UFT (QTP), QTP, Quick Test Pro
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rovio, Paf, Supercell, NITRO Games, Seriously, AVG, Google, Bosch, Yahoo, Microsoft, Yandex, Mozilla, eBay, PayPal, TESCO, Cisco WebEx, Facebook, LinkedIn, skype, Subway
Sage, JetBlue, Haufe.Group, Independent Health, Molina Healthcare, Cox Automotive, andTMNA Services
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitbar vs. OpenText Functional Testing and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.